Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 30th Nov 2005 18:57 UTC
Oracle and SUN Reaffirming prior statements, Sun said that it intends to open-source its Java and N1 software at a later date. The free software will cover its Java Enterprise System set of server middleware, Java development tools and N1 management software. The move will create a single package called the Solaris Enterprise System. It will include Sun's Solaris 10 operating system, PostgreSQL open-source database, the Java Enterprise System server software and tools, Sun N1-branded provisioning and management tools, and Secure Desktop software.
Order by: Score:
Bet ya
by Accident on Wed 30th Nov 2005 19:15 UTC
Accident
Member since:
2005-07-29

They will still get no respect.
I hope the package sell well.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bet ya
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Nov 2005 19:56 UTC in reply to "Bet ya"
Anonymous Member since:
---

There's no pleasing these people because they are really employees of Redhat, Novell, IBM, HP and Dell

Sun gets all the respect from its customers and to those guys who are going to gripe about Sun's free software, well you can go take a flying - if you know what I mean.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Bet ya
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Nov 2005 20:02 UTC in reply to "Bet ya"
RE[2]: Bet ya
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Nov 2005 22:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Bet ya"
Anonymous Member since:
---

man you really have no clue about what your talking about, everything sun has said has come true. Maybe you should read the blogs and statements from the employees about sun's announcements and strategies.

your one of those people that probably think solaris still isn't open sourced although sun claimed they "will".

ha

Reply Score: 0

v RE[3]: Bet ya
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 00:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bet ya"
RE[4]: Bet ya
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 00:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Bet ya"
Anonymous Member since:
---

> So why do you call Solaris open source? Nobody uses OpenSolaris.


Name ONE Linux company that ships the standard Linux kernel as defined by Linus Torvalds. Every single one of these MF'ing Linux vendors ships a modified kernel.

Also name ONE Linux company that ships a 100% LSB compliant distro - even RMS's pee blessed distro Debian is not in compliance. None of these MF'ing guys ship anything standard - they want to lock you into their little world just like MS or Sun or IBM does so what is the point of open source?

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Bet ya
by r_a_trip on Thu 1st Dec 2005 00:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Bet ya"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

so what is the point of open source?

For one to be Free to (re)compile software to fit your system...

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Bet ya
by thebluesgnr on Thu 1st Dec 2005 00:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Bet ya"
thebluesgnr Member since:
2005-11-14

Every single modified version is still free software. Solaris is not free or open source.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Bet ya
by Simba on Thu 1st Dec 2005 07:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Bet ya"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"Every single modified version is still free software. Solaris is not free or open source."

It;s not huh? I guess that is why there are at least four open source projects I know of that are based on combining Solaris with GNU tools? Because Solaris is not open source.

I hate to tell you, but Solaris is released under an genuine OSI APPROVED open source license. So YES, it most certainly is open source. Even by OSI standards. Crawl out from the rock you have been living under before you post stuff that makes you look totally ignorant.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Bet ya
by JonAnderson on Thu 1st Dec 2005 11:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Bet ya"
JonAnderson Member since:
2005-07-06

I just wanted to add that Solaris - Sun's release of
Solaris - is also free (as in beer).

Again, CDDL was created to allow Sun to release code
it didn't have the rights to at the same time as code
it did have the rights to. Some code is still encumbered
and always will be.

Some people are just never satisfied.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Bet ya
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 00:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Bet ya"
Anonymous Member since:
---

get over yourself already. opensolaris basicly is solaris 10. oh my god i did not say "open"solaris. a lot of the best new features were open sourced

holy hell i think that's a great reason to bash sun who gave away millions of dollars to the public!

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Bet ya
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 00:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Bet ya"
Anonymous Member since:
---

First of all, what's with the ego projection, this association of all things you dislike into one clump you can point at and call evil/bad/morally wrong/ "orwellian" / "cowards", etc. I mean Iraq, WTF?

Secondly, one can support opensouce AND not support the GPL. Somewhere in the history of some X windows code (perhaps it was XFree86 or the move from MIT's X consortium to Open Group's X11R5/6), I recall in an interview the choice being made in choosing the MIT License to specifically avoid the GPL.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: Bet ya
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 01:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Bet ya"
v RE[5]: Bet ya
by kaiwai on Thu 1st Dec 2005 03:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Bet ya"
v RE[6]: Bet ya
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 13:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Bet ya"
RE[5]: Bet ya
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 03:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Bet ya"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Stupid toughts not related to OSnews:
{Dear anonymous, if GWB ever wanted to fight REAL terrorism, he should have targeted Saodi Arbia first, even before afganstan which is just a battlefield. the real stock of mass destruction weapons aka Explosive Humans tech. and Faschist Islm Propaganda Corps lies there, between two Petrol pumps (and thanks to petrol-$). Irk was just a std diktatorship, weak, previsible and stupid. In fact, GWB-admin-lobby-party-sect-corps etc did the worst 2 choices for the "free world" : attaking the bad countries AND defending SA interests (in term of SA $$$ and public image). one good explanation for that is corrup$ion...}

ok let's get back to Sun, i think it's a great move especially that Sun have the choice to not "do" opensource. opensource is not intended to give users freesoftware (freeware exist for that). it is a way to create an ecosystem around either it's patented techs or it's service (which pays better for a well known brand).

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Bet ya
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 03:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Bet ya"
Anonymous Member since:
---

GPL is not the only opensource license available, CDDL is also approved by the OSI as an opensource license
Most of solaris 10 is opensource, and a lot more of the source is to come, the problem is that the actual solaris 10 was released before the sources.
Opensolaris is a young poject you should give it some time, after all, it took more than 10 years for linux to become what it is today
And about the opensolaris distributions, well, what linux distros are stable? opensolaris distributions are now in continued developemnt, just like fedora, opensuse or even debian, and if you really need stable, well, there is solaris 10 ;)
This 2005 will be a year to remember for sun and solaris users, not only they now have access to one of the best os's (if not the best) available for free and with most of the source but also they can get a lot of tools for it for free.
I think sun finally found the right path, and I look forward to seeing lots of great stuff from them

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Bet ya
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 04:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bet ya"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I bet you're one of those that only rely on press releases. If words speak louder than actions for you, then Sun is great. However, for most people, actions speak louder than words, so they know to steer clear away from anything Sun. I'm saying this because our company has been constantly shafted by Sun with hidden details and their incompetant engineers and partners.

It's free...until you want to use it.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Bet ya
by chekr on Thu 1st Dec 2005 06:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Bet ya"
chekr Member since:
2005-11-05

"constantly shafted by Sun with hidden details and their incompetant engineers and partners."

thats funny because last i checked their engineers were an extremely intelligent bunch, take a look at Bryan Cantrill's MIT35 award recently. Maybe a salesperson screwed you, I wouldn't say that would be a problem unique to Sun though ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Bet ya
by Simba on Thu 1st Dec 2005 07:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Bet ya"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

"I'm saying this because our company has been constantly shafted by Sun with hidden details and their incompetant engineers and partners."

Stop lying. The vast majority of companies who use Sun are very happy.

And if Sun's engineers are so incompetant, is that why Linux is always playing catch up with Solaris? Is that why they are constantly trying to clone Solaris features?

Heard of dtrace? Or the new zfs file system? Oops... Guess Solaris passed up Linux again in the technical superiority and innovative features department.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Bet ya
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 10:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bet ya"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Well I'd like to have a look at OpenSolaris, but before I can do that I have to register at Sun's site - AGAIN, download Solaris 10, install Solaris 10 onto a spare machine, build OpenSolaris myself, install OpenSolaris onto yet ANOTHER spare machine, and maybe, MAYBE, I'll be able to see what all the fuss is about.

Or I could just take your word for it . . .

Reply Score: 0

Java Enterprise System != Java
by Wes Felter on Wed 30th Nov 2005 19:49 UTC
Wes Felter
Member since:
2005-11-15

I think this article is about enterprise software, not VMs.

I'm glad to see that the "Java everything" naming has finally been eliminated now that the "Java Workstation" (that had nothing to do with Java) was replaced with the "Ultra" and the "Java Enterprise System" (that had little to do with Java) is now "Solaris Enterprise System".

Reply Score: 1

Java + FreeBSD
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Nov 2005 19:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Does it mean there will be a native Java for the BSDs anytime soon?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Java + FreeBSD
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Nov 2005 20:53 UTC in reply to "Java + FreeBSD"
Anonymous Member since:
---

No. It's about Sun's enterprise software, not their VM or class libraries for what regular people understand as Java. That will stay non-open source, and Sun has no plans to open that (VM, class libs) up, as the article says.

cheers,
dalibor topic

Reply Score: 0

RE: Java + FreeBSD
by sean on Wed 30th Nov 2005 21:02 UTC in reply to "Java + FreeBSD"
sean Member since:
2005-06-29

You can build a native JDK for FreeBSD via the java/jdk15 (or jdk13 or jdk14) port after downloading the source from Sun and a patch.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Java + FreeBSD
by dave on Thu 1st Dec 2005 15:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Java + FreeBSD"
dave Member since:
2005-07-01
nice
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Nov 2005 21:07 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The identity management stuff and tarantella sound interesting. Good luck, Sun, and thanks for releasing more software under open source licenses.

cheers,
dalibor topic

Reply Score: 0

v Interesting downtime
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Nov 2005 21:13 UTC
RE: Interesting downtime
by chekr on Thu 1st Dec 2005 06:03 UTC in reply to "Interesting downtime"
chekr Member since:
2005-11-05

go and post this on slashdot where someone cares...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Interesting downtime
by Simba on Thu 1st Dec 2005 06:47 UTC in reply to "Interesting downtime"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

What's your point? www.apache.org and all of it's subdomains were down for over 8 hours a few days ago.

Reply Score: 0

v Not open
by Anonymous on Wed 30th Nov 2005 23:09 UTC
RE: Not open
by ahmetaa on Wed 30th Nov 2005 23:49 UTC in reply to "Not open"
ahmetaa Member since:
2005-07-06

what is your point exactly? Java or Sun's Java? what is "redistribution"?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not open
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 06:12 UTC in reply to "Not open"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Wrong. You can view the source to Java (the JVM and the J2SE API implementation). Therefore, it is open source. You're confusing the term "open source" with RMS's "free as in freedom."

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Not open
by Happel on Thu 1st Dec 2005 10:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Not open"
Happel Member since:
2005-11-16

"Wrong. You can view the source to Java (the JVM and the J2SE API implementation). Therefore, it is open source. You're confusing the term "open source" with RMS's "free as in freedom."

So Windows is also open source because I can see the apis? Great!

Reply Score: 0

RE: Not open
by Simba on Thu 1st Dec 2005 06:52 UTC in reply to "Not open"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

Actually, Java can be restributed as long as your reason for redistributing it is because an application you are delivering requires is. But no, you can't redistribute it verbatim unless you have an agreement with Sun. I don't see how that is really an issue though.

And besides, it's only Sun's implementation of Java that can't be redistribute verbatim. The specs are open, and anyone is free to create a JVM under any license they want to. Harmony will be freely redistributable

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not open
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 10:51 UTC in reply to "Not open"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Java is not OpenSource.
Nobody was claiming that it is, altough work on open source implementations is in progress.

Here is a definition of open source:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

and Solaris is open source as it has an approved open source license (CDDL):
1) http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php

Some folks are concerned that CDDL it is not GPL compatible. The FSF defines CDDL as a FREE license, but incompatible with GPL.
2) http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLice...

Other licences defined as FREE, but incompatible with GPL (see above reference) include:
Apache License, Version 1.0
Apache License, Version 1.1
Apache Software License, version 2.0
Mozilla Public License (MPL)
IBM Public License, Version 1.0
Eclipse Public License Version 1.0
PHP License, Version 3.0

So it appears that CDDL is open source (see 1)
and free as in speech (see 2)
and free as in beer

Reply Score: 2

I love what Sun is doing...
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 00:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Talk about a company that knows how to adapt - these guys are doing a great job. Go, Sun! Glad to see you're back in fighting spirit!!

Reply Score: 0

v sorry to break it to you..
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 03:31 UTC
v RE: sorry to break it to you..
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 06:15 UTC in reply to "sorry to break it to you.."
Delete Iraq war comments please
by Simba on Thu 1st Dec 2005 06:56 UTC
Simba
Member since:
2005-10-08

Will someone please delete the comments in this thread that have to do with the Iraq war? And no, I don't mean just mod them down. I mean get rid of them. Cause no doubt they will resurface even if modded down in the form of someone bringing it back up again.

Thx.

Reply Score: 0

Interesting
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 10:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The software included is listed here:
http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/media/presskits/nov30/faq.html

One of the more interesting inclusions is Java Studio Creator 2 (currently early access)
http://developers.sun.com/prodtech/javatools/jscreator/ea/jsc2/inde...
Drag and drop web app development - a bit like ASP.NET only it's free and runs on Linux, OS X and Solaris as well as Windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE:Java is Not OpenSource
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 13:12 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Sun Java can't be redistributed with Debian,Fedora, Slackaware ,*BSD...

You cannot sell a modified version of Sun JVM (not JDK)
and give other your modified source code (Sun JVM not Sun JDK ), unless Sun give this permission (for a considerable amount of money).

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]:Java is Not OpenSource
by Arun on Thu 1st Dec 2005 18:05 UTC in reply to "RE:Java is Not OpenSource"
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07

Sun Java can't be redistributed with Debian,Fedora, Slackaware ,*BSD...

That has nothing to do with the Java license but the dimwitted attitude of the Linux distros.

You cannot sell a modified version of Sun JVM (not JDK)
and give other your modified source code (Sun JVM not Sun JDK ), unless Sun give this permission (for a considerable amount of money).


Let's get one thing clear. Java is a language. Java can neither be open or closed source. Sun's JVM is a piece of software that implements the JAVA sepcification (which any one is free to implement ala IBM, Classpath etc.).

Sun's JVM not being open source has nothing to do with Java being open or closed.

Why don't you ask IBM to open source thier JVM too?

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]:Java is Not OpenSource
by ormandj on Thu 1st Dec 2005 19:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]:Java is Not OpenSource"
ormandj Member since:
2005-10-09

OP: "Sun Java can't be redistributed with Debian,Fedora, Slackaware ,*BSD..."

You: "That has nothing to do with the Java license but the dimwitted attitude of the Linux distros."

Me: *BSD isn't a "Linux distro" nor is its license dimwitted, nor is that the reason Java can't be redistributed with it. Get a clue, please.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]:Java is Not OpenSource
by Arun on Thu 1st Dec 2005 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]:Java is Not OpenSource"
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07

Me: *BSD isn't a "Linux distro" nor is its license dimwitted, nor is that the reason Java can't be redistributed with it. Get a clue, please.

I know *BSD isn't a linux distribution. I specifically didn't include BSD in my response because not all BSDs have a problem with Sun's JRE and JDK. So the wildcarded *BSD in the OP's statement is false. My response however is accurate.

I give you:
http://www.freebsd.org/java/

Get a clue your self. On second thought get two.

Edited 2005-12-01 22:40

Reply Score: 0

RE:Java is Not OpenSource
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 13:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

From :http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq/ch5.html
5.3.1.2 What are the problems with Suns' new license?

Sun has moved to a new license the Sun Community License, like the GPL it is a viral license, but making all it touches subject to Sun licensing fee. The SCSL even goes so far as to define any implementation of a Sun specification as a "Modified Work". Basically, this means that if you implement any part of the new 1.2 API or Jini API, even from scratch, Sun will "own" your implementation and you will have to pay them for the right to use it.

13. "Modification(s)" means (i) any change to Covered Code;
(ii) any new file or other representation of computer
program statements that contains any portion of Covered
Code; and/or (iii) any new Source Code implementing any
portion of the Specifications.

Reply Score: 0

v Idiot
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 13:24 UTC
To the guy who mentioned WMDs
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 14:39 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It is completely unrelated and all you've done is start an OFF TOPIC flamewar. Go and sit in the corner and think about what you've done you troll.

Reply Score: 0

whartung
Member since:
2005-07-06

What this does, more than anything else, is validate Red Hats business model (to a point).

Sun has become what Red Hat is -- an F/OSS software company (modulo the hardware side of course, which should not be ignored).

In fact, Sun is doing one better than Red Hat.

Sun completely seperates their software use from their software support.

At the moment, I can not download a Red Hat Enterprise distribution and use it for any purpose whatsoever, for as long as I want, for no cost.

I can do that with Sun's software. Download, deploy it, and use it all I want for personal or commercial use.

Yes, I can download source bits and build my own system from their sources, or I can get a Red Hat clone, but none of these are "Red Hat Enterprise". Neither is Fedora.

Also, Sun's new bundle of SES (Solaris Enterprise System) has a huge bundled feature list over and above the basic day to day Unix services that Red Hat is providing.

Make no mistake, while it's all free now and soon to be OSS, commercial clients will eventually be paying Sun for these services, as that's simply a risk mitigation for them.

But Sun is "more free" than Red Hat is now.

It's also exciting to see that Sun Ray tech is slated to be freed up as well. Be nice to see where that takes us.

Reply Score: 1

RE:Java is Not OpenSource
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Dec 2005 23:05 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---